In our little paper, The Columbia Flier, we were recently
treated to the fulminations of one Reverend Dr. Simpson (a
moderator, I believe, of one of our more intolerant echoes
on FIDO; should anyone here follow that one, I would like
to receive anything said there about this) on the subject of
hate-crime laws:

ES> You can be against hate and hate-crime laws
ES>
ES> The recent beating and murder of a homosexual Wyoming
ES> college student is reprehensible and has shocked the
ES> sensibilities of every decent person. Many immediately
ES> pointed to this tragedy as evidence of the need for
ES> hate-crime legislation to protect homosexuals.
ES>
ES> Millions of men and women in our nation share a conviction
ES> that homosexuality is wrong in God's sight, and while these
ES> people would never condone violence against homosexuals,
ES> they would feel a religious conviction and obligation to
ES> privately and to publicly speak out against that lifestyle.
ES>
ES> There are those that would delight in silencing any
ES> criticism of their lifestyle and would find this hate-crime
ES> legislation the perfect tool for accomplishing their end.
ES> Religious broadcasters in Canada already must expunge any
ES> negative references to homosexuality and abortion due to
ES> Canada's hate-crime laws.
ES>
ES> The laws are already in place to prosecute and convict
ES> those guilty of violence against any human being that makes
ES> it past birth. Hate-crime legislation targeted at protecting
ES> the gay community has the very real potential of becoming a
ES> gag on the collective religious freedom of Jews, Catholics,
ES> Muslims, Protestants and multitudes of other people of
ES> faith.
ES>
ES> Dr. Edward E. Simpson,
ES> Pastor
ES> Harvester Baptist Church,
ES> Columbia

To which I responded in a Letter to the Editor:

What the Reverend Dr. Simpson does or says in the
privacy of his own home, in his church, on the street, in
letters to a newspaper, or in a hired hall to consenting
adults is entirely his own business and protected by the
constitution, so long as no laws are broken. Should he
express his views about gays through a bullhorn, he disturbs
the peace, no matter what those views may be. Should he
induce his listeners to take unwanted actions against other
persons, he is inciting to riot, no matter whether those
unwanted actions are hugs or blows. Should he reprove gays
for their behaviors in their own bedrooms, he is guilty of
voyeurism (how else might he discover what those people are
doing?), however well-meant his reproof.

And that is as it should be: the first ten amendments to
The Constitution of the United States of America are all
about protecting the individual in his beliefs, in his home,
in his community, and in his daily intercourse with other
citizens from the intrusion of the government. So long as we
do no harm to others, our doings are nobody's business but
our own.

In his letter to the Flier ("You can be against hate and
hate-crime laws" Oct 22, 1998:10-11), the Reverend Dr.
Simpson expresses concern that his right to free speech is
endangered by proposed hate-crime legislation, claiming that
it "has the very real potential of becoming a gag on the
collective religious freedom of Jews, Catholics, Muslims,
Protestants and multitudes of other people of faith." The
nub of his concern lies in the fact that "Millions of men
and women in our nation share a conviction that
homosexuality is wrong in God's sight," and--rather than
simply avoiding the practice of homosexuality themselves
(which would appear to me to be a logical action arising
from such a conviction)--wish to speak out against it.

I may have missed something, but I am aware of no
language in any proposed hate-crime legislation that would
make any change whatsoever in our freedom to express
ourselves on any topic: perhaps the Reverend Dr. Simpson can
correct my ignorance by citing some specific language to his
point from some actual law presently being considered in the
U.S.?

All he offers instead is an anecdote from a neighboring
country, claiming that "Religious broadcasters in Canada
already must expunge any negative references to
homosexuality and abortion due to Canada's hate-crime laws."
I do not know whether this is the case in Canada or not, but
his comparison of private speech to broadcast speech is
specious: broadcast speech has always been under regulation
in this country, mostly in the matter of bleeping out
certain words for fear of offending religious persons. That
does not seem ever to have stopped Americans from using
those very words in their daily conversations.

Wisely avoiding any mention of the fact that those same
millions of religious men and women in our nation ought, on
the same grounds, share a conviction that eating shrimp is
wrong in God's sight, the Reverend Dr. Simpson assures us
that "these people would never condone violence against
homosexuals," an assertion I find rather sweeping. Given two
populations matched in age, gender, and numbers, one holding
the conviction that homosexuality is an abomination, and the
other holding the conviction that the sexuality of
consenting adults is nobody's business but their own, which
is the more likely to produce a subset of individuals who
beat up on fags? Which is the more likely to produce a
larger subset of individuals who feel that a fag's having
been beaten was something that was probably coming to him?

The conviction that a god approves of one's dislikes is
a considerable inducement to uncivil behavior: people who
suppose they are serving a "higher" law can and do
cheerfully commit murder. It is better then that they have
their freedom of speech guaranteed by the "lower" law that
we all, as citizens, share, so that their "religious
conviction and obligation to privately and to publicly speak
out against that lifestyle" can be exercised and bloodshed
avoided.

Should the Reverend Dr. Simpson present a specific law
that would alter the state of our freedom of speech as we
presently enjoy it, I shall gladly join him in his battle
against the same; meanwhile, he can say what he likes about
gays with no hinderance from me, so long as no laws, civil
or logical, are broken. I presume he would extend the same
civility to me.

---------

Whether the letter will get printed remains to be seen,
but you all may trust my vanity to keep you current.

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.